Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Fion

To be frank, Guild Wars 2 is so good as a B2P game that any future MMOG will have to be absolute Dynamite for me to even consider paying to play it. I spent years in WoW paying a sub to sit around in cities waiting on a queue. I'll never do anything like that again and I'll probably never play another P2P MMOG again.

It isn't about the money, it's about the choice. GW2 gives me a AAA game that I can 'choose' to spend money on if I want cosmetic goodies. A P2P game that isn't as good (IMHO few games ever have been as good as GW2) that requires me to pay them to even access? No, never again unless that game is astoundingly good.

So I voted no. From what I have seen the game doesn't look that good but I'd have tried it if it were B2P or F2P. But I'm not paying $60 to demo a mediocre MMOG.

Finally someone that understands what it is about, choice !

people cramp together B2P and F2P as if they are the same thing, nothing could be further from the truth.

plus, not all developers produce AAA quality B2P or F2P games, take that into consideration as well.

I've played GW2 for 2000 hours and for me to pay a sub for any othet game to even be allowed to login, the game would have to be GW2 on steroids with candy, syrup and ice cream on top.

people forget or haven't realized that in P2P games your characters are not truly yours they are rented !

you pay or you do not get access to any of your shit !

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

That freeloaders won't play this game is a good thing.

Most people who can't afford or don't want to afford a sub are toxic players, and neither the community or the game get anything from them. Good move. I'm looking forward to this one and Wildstar, only because of that.

Additionally, I like competitive play, and only subscription games can guarantee fair competition both in PvE and PvP. Subscription based games is the only way to go for me.

My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.

But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.

But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

everybody understands that games are business lol

the moron part is for those that haven't yet caught on to the fact your characters are not really yours at all they are rented.

and you pay to get the ability to login that is utter bullshit now, in the past when server and connection costs were sky high it was understandable not so much today.

it's about choice !

not about, you cannot login if you do not pay me !

i play gw2 and some months i spent more money than a sub on it for what i choose to buy for my toons

but.... my toons are always there for me and i can always login and play.

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.

But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.

But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

everybody understands that games are business lol

the moron part is for those that haven't yet caught on to the fact your characters are not really yours at all they are rented.

and you pay to get the ability to login that is utter bullshit now, in the past when server and connection costs were sky high it was understandable not so much today.

it's about choice !

not about, you cannot login if you do not pay me !

i play gw2 and some months i spent more money than a sub on it for what i choose to buy for my toons

but.... my toons are always there for me and i can always login and play.

You sound like someone whose idea of a fun weekend is to spend BOTH days hanging out at the mall and doesn't use an email spam filter because you want to read them all.

Choice is good. Spending my game time with subtle and not so subtle advertising is the cost of that B2P choice.

What you B2P fans don't seem to get is that many of us would rather pay a monthly amount to not be spammed with messages about who bought what, what today's "special" is, or have yet another locked chest drop. I play fantasy games in part to get away from that kind of shit.

It's the same thing as watching 42 minutes of TV dramas + 18 minutes of ads per hour on the "free" networks vs. spending an extra $10/month to get HBO and watching even better series with no interruptions. I'll take the HBO option every time.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I don't understand why the OP is worried about payment metod,YOUR time is more valuable than a sub fee...is it not?You as i and others should be playing a game that is FUN for us to play,not weather or not it has a sub fee or not.

DOES TESO all of a sudden become a better game if it is f2p?of course not,it would be he same game,actually most likely a worse game because it would change it's design to cater to cash shop.

Personally i have been too busy and tired after work,so i have not the time to try the game or do enough homework on it.I have kept an eye on it and will try it out eventually and if i like it,i will sub no problem.

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.

But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

everybody understands that games are business lol

the moron part is for those that haven't yet caught on to the fact your characters are not really yours at all they are rented.

and you pay to get the ability to login that is utter bullshit now, in the past when server and connection costs were sky high it was understandable not so much today.

it's about choice !

not about, you cannot login if you do not pay me !

i play gw2 and some months i spent more money than a sub on it for what i choose to buy for my toons

but.... my toons are always there for me and i can always login and play.

You sound like someone whose idea of a fun weekend is to spend BOTH days hanging out at the mall and doesn't use an email spam filter because you want to read them all.

Choice is good. Spending my game time with subtle and not so subtle advertising is the cost of that B2P choice.

What you B2P fans don't seem to get is that many of us would rather pay a monthly amount to not be spammed with messages about who bought what, what today's "special" is, or have yet another locked chest drop. I play fantasy games in part to get away from that kind of shit.

It's the same thing as watching 42 minutes of TV dramas + 18 minutes of ads per hour on the "free" networks vs. spending an extra $10/month to get HBO and watching even better series with no interruptions. I'll take the HBO option every time.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Dogblaster

Originally posted by Brabbit1987

Originally posted by thark

Originally posted by FionTo be frank, Guild Wars 2 is so good as a B2P game that any future MMOG will have to be absolute Dynamite for me to even consider paying to play it. I spent years in WoW paying a sub to sit around in cities waiting on a queue. I'll never do anything like that again and I'll probably never play another P2P MMOG again.It isn't about the money, it's about the choice. GW2 gives me a AAA game that I can 'choose' to spend money on if I want cosmetic goodies. A P2P game that isn't as good (IMHO few games ever have been as good as GW2) that requires me to pay them to even access? No, never again unless that game is astoundingly good.So I voted no. From what I have seen the game doesn't look that good but I'd have tried it if it were B2P or F2P. But I'm not paying $60 to demo a mediocre MMOG.

Look dude, from what I can tell you still have to PAY for GW2 , so you payed 60 $ for GW2 and played it..Only diffrence you will not be subscribing to it :)It's the same with ESO you pay 40-50 $, then consider if you wan't a subscription or not , there is ALWAYS a month included in the base game purchase.So..If you ONLY play these games for a month there really is NO diffrence in price at all.

If you "ONLY"? Sorry to say, that is a huge difference and you can't just apply a rule to change it. What if you want to play MORE then 1 month? Is it the same price then?The difference is, one game you can play forever with out a time limit if you so choose for the price of $60. The other you have a limit of 1 month, and can never play the game again unless you pay the sub. I don't see how you call that NO difference. o.oEven if you do decide to really only play the game for 1 month there STILL is a difference. That difference is, I can pick up one of these games at any time and play it even after that month, and the other I can't. The difference is capability. The difference is as clear as day. The difference is not very hard to miss. So how did you?

If you want to play for more than one month, get out and find a job or ask your parents to buy you another month. Living of social support might be enought for GW2 but not for every mmorpg. So stick with your gw2 and leave P2P mmorpgs alone, just ignore them.P.S.: GW2 sucks :P

Good job on using a stupid counter-argument. The point isn't that one can't afford it. The point is one doesn't feel it's "worth" it.

First, I find it funny how everyone here assumes crap about ones life. Second, I don't even play GW2. Good try though.

Even if I don't play GW2, I still know the B2P model can work if used properly. As for leaving P2P mmo's alone? Hey hey ... the companies are the ones that switch them to F2P eventually, not me.

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by kurokayosama

Originally posted by iridescence

Originally posted by kurokayosama

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

everybody understands that games are business lolthe moron part is for those that haven't yet caught on to the fact your characters are not really yours at all they are rented.and you pay to get the ability to login that is utter bullshit now, in the past when server and connection costs were sky high it was understandable not so much today.it's about choice !not about, you cannot login if you do not pay me !i play gw2 and some months i spent more money than a sub on it for what i choose to buy for my toons but.... my toons are always there for me and i can always login and play.

You sound like someone whose idea of a fun weekend is to spend BOTH days hanging out at the mall and doesn't use an email spam filter because you want to read them all.Choice is good. Spending my game time with subtle and not so subtle advertising is the cost of that B2P choice.What you B2P fans don't seem to get is that many of us would rather pay a monthly amount to not be spammed with messages about who bought what, what today's "special" is, or have yet another locked chest drop. I play fantasy games in part to get away from that kind of shit. It's the same thing as watching 42 minutes of TV dramas + 18 minutes of ads per hour on the "free" networks vs. spending an extra $10/month to get HBO and watching even better series with no interruptions. I'll take the HBO option every time.

As I have mentioned in the past. B2P doesn't NEED advertising like that at all. There are not many B2P games to compare to. The issue is, some people have no idea how to separate the actual meaning of B2P from their personal opinion. All B2P means is you pay for the game once, just like you would any other video game. No monthly fees. That is all it means. Putting cash shops in, or advertising has nothing to do with B2P itself. That has to do with company decisions.

An Elder Scrolls game would have done perfectly fine going B2P with no advertising and cash shops. They already have a huge fan base, and you can bet at least 50 - 75% of those fans will continue to purchase DLC / Expansions.

The issue is P2P players don't even want to give it a try. To self absorbed in "Mine is the right answer" to actually think about it.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Not going to bother with the tired old BS arguments about if P2P players are better or not so I will just say that if the game was F2P I would at least think about jumping in just to see if they bothered to improve on the current piss poor story because there sure isn't anything new or innovative about the gameplay...even the games focus, the centralized pvp isn't currently bringing anything that hasn't already been done.

“I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Brabbit1987

Originally posted by Dogblaster

Originally posted by Brabbit1987

Originally posted by thark

Originally posted by FionTo be frank, Guild Wars 2 is so good as a B2P game that any future MMOG will have to be absolute Dynamite for me to even consider paying to play it. I spent years in WoW paying a sub to sit around in cities waiting on a queue. I'll never do anything like that again and I'll probably never play another P2P MMOG again.It isn't about the money, it's about the choice. GW2 gives me a AAA game that I can 'choose' to spend money on if I want cosmetic goodies. A P2P game that isn't as good (IMHO few games ever have been as good as GW2) that requires me to pay them to even access? No, never again unless that game is astoundingly good.So I voted no. From what I have seen the game doesn't look that good but I'd have tried it if it were B2P or F2P. But I'm not paying $60 to demo a mediocre MMOG.

Look dude, from what I can tell you still have to PAY for GW2 , so you payed 60 $ for GW2 and played it..Only diffrence you will not be subscribing to it :)It's the same with ESO you pay 40-50 $, then consider if you wan't a subscription or not , there is ALWAYS a month included in the base game purchase.So..If you ONLY play these games for a month there really is NO diffrence in price at all.

If you "ONLY"? Sorry to say, that is a huge difference and you can't just apply a rule to change it. What if you want to play MORE then 1 month? Is it the same price then?The difference is, one game you can play forever with out a time limit if you so choose for the price of $60. The other you have a limit of 1 month, and can never play the game again unless you pay the sub. I don't see how you call that NO difference. o.oEven if you do decide to really only play the game for 1 month there STILL is a difference. That difference is, I can pick up one of these games at any time and play it even after that month, and the other I can't. The difference is capability. The difference is as clear as day. The difference is not very hard to miss. So how did you?

If you want to play for more than one month, get out and find a job or ask your parents to buy you another month. Living of social support might be enought for GW2 but not for every mmorpg. So stick with your gw2 and leave P2P mmorpgs alone, just ignore them.P.S.: GW2 sucks :P

Good job on using a stupid counter-argument. The point isn't that one can't afford it. The point is one doesn't feel it's "worth" it.

First, I find it funny how everyone here assumes crap about ones life. Second, I don't even play GW2. Good try though.

Even if I don't play GW2, I still know the B2P model can work if used properly. As for leaving P2P mmo's alone? Hey hey ... the companies are the ones that switch them to F2P eventually, not me.

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by kurokayosama

Originally posted by iridescence

Originally posted by kurokayosama

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

No company is going to run a game they aren't making any money out of and there are some drawbacks to a game totally designed around selling cash shop crap.But apparently I'm a "moron" for understanding that no game outside of pirate sites is ever completely free. Whatever...Are you enjoing all those new zones and other content they've added to GW2 since launch? Oh wait, it's a mostly a bunch of shallow crap designed to get people to buy rare limited time cosmetic items from their cash shop? Shocking....

everybody understands that games are business lolthe moron part is for those that haven't yet caught on to the fact your characters are not really yours at all they are rented.and you pay to get the ability to login that is utter bullshit now, in the past when server and connection costs were sky high it was understandable not so much today.it's about choice !not about, you cannot login if you do not pay me !i play gw2 and some months i spent more money than a sub on it for what i choose to buy for my toons but.... my toons are always there for me and i can always login and play.

You sound like someone whose idea of a fun weekend is to spend BOTH days hanging out at the mall and doesn't use an email spam filter because you want to read them all.Choice is good. Spending my game time with subtle and not so subtle advertising is the cost of that B2P choice.What you B2P fans don't seem to get is that many of us would rather pay a monthly amount to not be spammed with messages about who bought what, what today's "special" is, or have yet another locked chest drop. I play fantasy games in part to get away from that kind of shit. It's the same thing as watching 42 minutes of TV dramas + 18 minutes of ads per hour on the "free" networks vs. spending an extra $10/month to get HBO and watching even better series with no interruptions. I'll take the HBO option every time.

As I have mentioned in the past. B2P doesn't NEED advertising like that at all. There are not many B2P games to compare to. The issue is, some people have no idea how to separate the actual meaning of B2P from their personal opinion. All B2P means is you pay for the game once, just like you would any other video game. No monthly fees. That is all it means. Putting cash shops in, or advertising has nothing to do with B2P itself. That has to do with company decisions.

An Elder Scrolls game would have done perfectly fine going B2P with no advertising and cash shops. They already have a huge fan base, and you can bet at least 50 - 75% of those fans will continue to purchase DLC / Expansions.

The issue is P2P players don't even want to give it a try. To self absorbed in "Mine is the right answer" to actually think about it.

Yes. the same stuff does get rehashed here on this thread frequently. No one but you is talking about a theoretical implementation of B2P in an MMO where advertising is not done. We all know one, and only one B2P MMO implementation. Like it or not when the terms MMO and B2P are used together we all think GW2. And, as you know, they do have advertising + the locked chest "incentive." Every other MMO to date has been either sub or F2P.

So... based on actual experience and not the theory of how B2P could be implemented in an MMO, we have sub MMOs with no advertising or anything else that is not sub with advertising.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I think the largest issue, is many people who don't play F2P games or are against them, have a very warped stand point on them that clouds their judgement on what a good game really is. So many people get caught up in the F2P, B2P, and P2P bull crap, that they don't realize the payment models have very little to do with wether or not a game is good or bad. If a game is bad, it will be bad, regardless of the payment model.

I agree, that's a very valid point, the payment method does not insure by itself, whether a game will be well designed or not. However what I have noticed is that most F2P games stink, and its true that some other payment models have produced games that stink as well, but the lions share of suck so far has landed squarely in the F2P model.

So many people play a bad F2P game, and then judge all F2P games in the same manner. People judge B2P almost if not entirely by using GW2 as an example. I got news for people .. it doesn't have to be done "that" way. Just because a certain company did it this way, or that way, doesn't mean it needs to be.

True, just because a company was successful with a particular model doesn't mean it has to be that way alone. Experimenting is to be encouraged and I agree its a valid point. But you are assuming, with zero proof I might add, that everyone who dislikes a F2P game has played only one and thus mistakenly has a prejudice due to one bad experience. How many poor F2P games does someone in your opinion have to waste their time on before they're allowed to dislike the model?

I don't understand why, MMOs can't simply use a B2P model with no cash shop, and sell DLC / Expansions every so often to keep the money coming in. They already use this method to begin with for Elder Scrolls ... so why not Elder Scrolls Online? Heck, they probably would make more. Why? Well, the sub turns off a lot of people. No sub? Oh look! More players, more money, more opportunity.

You don't understand or you don't agree? The understanding is fairly simple, because you're comparing apples and oranges. The Elder Scroll franchise with its B2P with DLC works, but it is a single player game. Do you know what it takes to make a profitable single player game? What kind of team of developers does it consist of? Whats the overhead for such a team? What does it take to maintain that team? Now how about to run a MMO? What kind of infrastructure is required for that? Do you really think they incur the exact same expenses? Until you know the answers to such questions, you are merely speculating based upon personal bias.

Secondly, Subs do not turn off a lot of people, it turns off a segment of the consumer base, and typically one who dislikes paying for anything past certain select features. Requiring no subs by itself does not insure more players/money/opportunity, all it does is tug at those who have a bias against subs to give the game a look. Much as you insist that people dismiss F2P without proper cause, the same can be said about anti-sub plan advocates.

Another issue is the P2P players. They are delusional in almost nearly ever aspect. Every excuse they give for why paying $15 a month is better, has no proof. Matter of fact, common excuses is that it keeps unwanted players out. Unwanted players? Like who exactly? Bots? Sure, I will give you that, but there are ways to prevent it even with out $15 a month. So really no excuse. Trolls? In what world do you live in? Trolls have money too rofl. $15 a month does not prevent trolls.

Delusional in almost every aspect? Strong accusation, if I toss that back at you for advocating other payment models am I a troll? If your answer was a immediate yes your mind is closed off and you are prejudiced to solely your position, with any facts that might threaten said position being ignored outright and then it is you who are delusional. Someone who isn't willing to listen, isn't worth being listened to I've found.

However you are correct that "unwanted players" are not kept out, assholes exist in every group, and what multiplies their numbers and severity has absolutely nothing to do with payment model. See, this is me listening to you saying payment models don't keep out trolls, even though I dislike F2P game models, I've seen just as many asshats in P2P games. What people are often saying regarding "unwanted players" is they want a reduction in toxic players and the means to combat them with consequences for their behavior, and mistakenly believe payment model affects this.

What does keep out unwanted players however, is game dev's responding to toxic behavior and punishing it. Tangible consequences for toxic behavior does improve gameplay just as in the real world, people restrain themselves when they know punishment is imminent for misdeeds. While the following article may not be the final word, it should open the eyes of anyone who seeks to broaden their knowledge based upon experiments done when it comes to dealing with toxic players. http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JimCummings/20130331/189629/GDC_Riot_Experimentally_Investigates_Online_Toxicity.php

Another excuse is better service. However, this makes little sense. A company's customer service either sucks, or is good, I don't think it has anything to do with the payment model for the game. Really there is no reason for customer service to decline at all. Don't blame it on the payment model, blame it on the company.

You are articulate enough with your posts that you strike me as intelligent, and if you were to set aside for a moment the ideal of what you think should be, you'd realize that payroll does impact customer service. Your position is a utopian outlook that does not mesh with reality so long as our planet revolves around a motivation of earning money. Turning a blind eye to this and insisting it be like you want despite this reality some would call delusional.

Fact: In every industry CS is affected by payroll and the technology they have to assist them, with service based industries being impacted the most (MMOs, regardless of payment models, are service related entertainment industries). If there aren't enough CSRs to address customer issues, a company faces simple choices. Spend more money on reps (payroll), improve the tech CSRs use to be more efficient (still payroll related) or allow unsatisfied consumer bleed. I could provide you with a mountain of facts of studies done with companies slashing payroll expenses with CSRs being the first area they cut because it is the most expensive, and a inevitable decline in consumer satisfaction which in turn affects life time revenue of a given customer and final say on company profits.

You are correct that a P2P model does not insure quality CS, but if they fail to provide good CS their clients walk away, often permanently. Proponents of P2P want a measure of accountability and power through the use of their wallet, it is understood upfront, deliver good service or no more future payments. It is no guarantee of quality, but failure to deliver it is frequently very harmful for the business to continue and that is a known element from the start. P2P models have to deliver quickly, or they fail quickly. Other models have more wiggle room and to the P2P consumer, they like that P2P industries don't have as much wiggle room, it gives them a measure of power (real or merely perceived) that they place a value on.

A good example of this is WAR, though it was P2P, it failed to deliver on many fronts, and its subscriber base dwindled rapidly, even when they went F2P, they continued to fail. So true, payment model didn't make them any less of a bad company, but my point is, they started out as P2P and failed to deliver, and quickly started to sink because of it. Their subscribers yanked their renewals as EA/Mythic repeatedly failed to deliver the service subscribers were looking for, and pulling their subs hurt. Thats what most advocates of P2P are looking for, the ability to through the force of their numbers, have a direct noticeable impact when they withhold future payments. And its consequences can be seen more quickly than other payment models because of its very nature.

A better product? Really? How so? This also doesn't make any sense. Heck a B2P game and a P2P game ... really shouldn't have any difference at all in this aspect. F2P .. maybe, but it certainly doesn't have to be this way.

So why do you judge a game based on payment models instead of basing it on if the game is actually good or not? Cause I hate to break this to you. . a P2P game can be bad too. P2P doesn't magically make games any better. As I said .. it's delusional.

Again with the inflamatory accusations, it harms your argument more than you realize.

However, I agree B2P/P2P can be equal in quality and there is little reason it shouldn't be. Neither one is inherently superior in delivery of quality.

How about the excuse you get what you pay for. Well let's put it this way. At some point, this no longer is true. Once it goes over a certain amount it becomes what is known as a rip off. People get ripped off all the time with out even knowing it. Let's say you buy a $5 bush, and a friend buys a $1 brush. You friends brush break in 2 days. You got what you payed for would apply. Now switch this around, your friend buys a $30 brush. 5 years down the road and you both still have the same brushes. You can suspect you friend got ripped off. Both brushes are of the same quality, but you friend payed more.

So, point is, paying more doesn't always mean better.

True, paying for something does not guarantee a better product, nor does it assure market forces don't cause a change in pricing, be that higher or lower. However your example is flawed, you use the term "being ripped off", which implies being swindled or deceived while buying something, which is a very different beast compared to feeling buyer remorse because market forces cause a change in price or poor shopper awareness. The person who whines about being "ripped off" because he paid more than his buddy for something is really whining about not proactively doing due diligence and wants to shift the blame of responsibility to someone else.

Paying for something alerts the shopper to the claimed value of something. If one is being told they can choose between a product that seems identical but one is $100 and the other is $50, even a half-wit should be asking why the price difference? Instinctively a shopper realizes that the half priced item must be half price for a reason and that they should seek information as to why.

"Free" is a myth. There is no such thing as free. As one gets older one sees this universal truth unless of course, they're prone to denial. "Free" merely means you will pay later on in some other manner rather than upfront. Thus I don't mind B2P models or P2P, what I am paying for is fairly transparent and I can decide on whether or not it holds value for me. F2P frequently has gated content and gotchas, sometimes they are transparent with them, but frequently its more subtle than that.

Personally I prefer a B2P model with a membership as was mentioned earlier in this thread, that payment model has a great deal of merit and high consumer satisfaction. Otherwise I tend to prefer P2P because I have certain expectations for that model which if they are not met, I yank my sub and am done with the product. I place more trust in someone wanting to get rich, than someone wanting to do something for me for "free", and with P2P/membership they have to deliver repeatedly, or they don't get to be rich.

Even peace may be purchased at too high a price, and the only time you are completely safe is when you lie in the grave.

Report this post

that is so much bullshit I don't see how so many morons pay for a sub ever !

Out of curiosity, how much do you spend per mmo per month? f2p I imagine or maybe a b2p.

I've used this example before; if a game costs 100 million to make and the developers don't get the complete amount per sub or transaction then they have a large amount of people to sell to. So over 1.5 million players to buy the box just to break even BUT if the company only gets 50% of that due to taxes, operating costs then double.

That's just shooting from the hip numbers. Iknow in retail there was an automatic 50% markup. So it could be that they keep more of the money (or less?) but you get the idea.

Now that's just to break even. It's not to keep the doors open, keep people employed and allow them to service the game, be able to develop expansions, etc.

now, if the game is f2p then they have to gamble that he whales are going to pick up more of that cost and they constantly have to entice people to pay a little here and there.

Just to break even.

And they hae to keep coming up with hats to sell whihc they won't be able to predict as far as sales.

IN general they make it so that subscriptions are "easier" or give more perks because they can budget their game better in the long run.

As others here have said, these games cost money. If they can't get their money one way they will get it another and if they can't get any money then at some point these games aren't really going to be a viable business.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Seeker728

I think the largest issue, is many people who don't play F2P games or are against them, have a very warped stand point on them that clouds their judgement on what a good game really is. So many people get caught up in the F2P, B2P, and P2P bull crap, that they don't realize the payment models have very little to do with wether or not a game is good or bad. If a game is bad, it will be bad, regardless of the payment model.

I agree, that's a very valid point, the payment method does not insure by itself, whether a game will be well designed or not. However what I have noticed is that most F2P games stink, and its true that some other payment models have produced games that stink as well, but the lions share of suck so far has landed squarely in the F2P model.

So many people play a bad F2P game, and then judge all F2P games in the same manner. People judge B2P almost if not entirely by using GW2 as an example. I got news for people .. it doesn't have to be done "that" way. Just because a certain company did it this way, or that way, doesn't mean it needs to be.

True, just because a company was successful with a particular model doesn't mean it has to be that way alone. Experimenting is to be encouraged and I agree its a valid point. But you are assuming, with zero proof I might add, that everyone who dislikes a F2P game has played only one and thus mistakenly has a prejudice due to one bad experience. How many poor F2P games does someone in your opinion have to waste their time on before they're allowed to dislike the model?

I don't understand why, MMOs can't simply use a B2P model with no cash shop, and sell DLC / Expansions every so often to keep the money coming in. They already use this method to begin with for Elder Scrolls ... so why not Elder Scrolls Online? Heck, they probably would make more. Why? Well, the sub turns off a lot of people. No sub? Oh look! More players, more money, more opportunity.

You don't understand or you don't agree? The understanding is fairly simple, because you're comparing apples and oranges. The Elder Scroll franchise with its B2P with DLC works, but it is a single player game. Do you know what it takes to make a profitable single player game? What kind of team of developers does it consist of? Whats the overhead for such a team? What does it take to maintain that team? Now how about to run a MMO? What kind of infrastructure is required for that? Do you really think they incur the exact same expenses? Until you know the answers to such questions, you are merely speculating based upon personal bias.

Secondly, Subs do not turn off a lot of people, it turns off a segment of the consumer base, and typically one who dislikes paying for anything past certain select features. Requiring no subs by itself does not insure more players/money/opportunity, all it does is tug at those who have a bias against subs to give the game a look. Much as you insist that people dismiss F2P without proper cause, the same can be said about anti-sub plan advocates.

Another issue is the P2P players. They are delusional in almost nearly ever aspect. Every excuse they give for why paying $15 a month is better, has no proof. Matter of fact, common excuses is that it keeps unwanted players out. Unwanted players? Like who exactly? Bots? Sure, I will give you that, but there are ways to prevent it even with out $15 a month. So really no excuse. Trolls? In what world do you live in? Trolls have money too rofl. $15 a month does not prevent trolls.

Delusional in almost every aspect? Strong accusation, if I toss that back at you for advocating other payment models am I a troll? If your answer was a immediate yes your mind is closed off and you are prejudiced to solely your position, with any facts that might threaten said position being ignored outright and then it is you who are delusional. Someone who isn't willing to listen, isn't worth being listened to I've found.

However you are correct that "unwanted players" are not kept out, assholes exist in every group, and what multiplies their numbers and severity has absolutely nothing to do with payment model. See, this is me listening to you saying payment models don't keep out trolls, even though I dislike F2P game models, I've seen just as many asshats in P2P games. What people are often saying regarding "unwanted players" is they want a reduction in toxic players and the means to combat them with consequences for their behavior, and mistakenly believe payment model affects this.

What does keep out unwanted players however, is game dev's responding to toxic behavior and punishing it. Tangible consequences for toxic behavior does improve gameplay just as in the real world, people restrain themselves when they know punishment is imminent for misdeeds. While the following article may not be the final word, it should open the eyes of anyone who seeks to broaden their knowledge based upon experiments done when it comes to dealing with toxic players. http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JimCummings/20130331/189629/GDC_Riot_Experimentally_Investigates_Online_Toxicity.php

Another excuse is better service. However, this makes little sense. A company's customer service either sucks, or is good, I don't think it has anything to do with the payment model for the game. Really there is no reason for customer service to decline at all. Don't blame it on the payment model, blame it on the company.

You are articulate enough with your posts that you strike me as intelligent, and if you were to set aside for a moment the ideal of what you think should be, you'd realize that payroll does impact customer service. Your position is a utopian outlook that does not mesh with reality so long as our planet revolves around a motivation of earning money. Turning a blind eye to this and insisting it be like you want despite this reality some would call delusional.

Fact: In every industry CS is affected by payroll and the technology they have to assist them, with service based industries being impacted the most (MMOs, regardless of payment models, are service related entertainment industries). If there aren't enough CSRs to address customer issues, a company faces simple choices. Spend more money on reps (payroll), improve the tech CSRs use to be more efficient (still payroll related) or allow unsatisfied consumer bleed. I could provide you with a mountain of facts of studies done with companies slashing payroll expenses with CSRs being the first area they cut because it is the most expensive, and a inevitable decline in consumer satisfaction which in turn affects life time revenue of a given customer and final say on company profits.

You are correct that a P2P model does not insure quality CS, but if they fail to provide good CS their clients walk away, often permanently. Proponents of P2P want a measure of accountability and power through the use of their wallet, it is understood upfront, deliver good service or no more future payments. It is no guarantee of quality, but failure to deliver it is frequently very harmful for the business to continue and that is a known element from the start. P2P models have to deliver quickly, or they fail quickly. Other models have more wiggle room and to the P2P consumer, they like that P2P industries don't have as much wiggle room, it gives them a measure of power (real or merely perceived) that they place a value on.

A good example of this is WAR, though it was P2P, it failed to deliver on many fronts, and its subscriber base dwindled rapidly, even when they went F2P, they continued to fail. So true, payment model didn't make them any less of a bad company, but my point is, they started out as P2P and failed to deliver, and quickly started to sink because of it. Their subscribers yanked their renewals as EA/Mythic repeatedly failed to deliver the service subscribers were looking for, and pulling their subs hurt. Thats what most advocates of P2P are looking for, the ability to through the force of their numbers, have a direct noticeable impact when they withhold future payments. And its consequences can be seen more quickly than other payment models because of its very nature.

A better product? Really? How so? This also doesn't make any sense. Heck a B2P game and a P2P game ... really shouldn't have any difference at all in this aspect. F2P .. maybe, but it certainly doesn't have to be this way.

So why do you judge a game based on payment models instead of basing it on if the game is actually good or not? Cause I hate to break this to you. . a P2P game can be bad too. P2P doesn't magically make games any better. As I said .. it's delusional.

Again with the inflamatory accusations, it harms your argument more than you realize.

However, I agree B2P/P2P can be equal in quality and there is little reason it shouldn't be. Neither one is inherently superior in delivery of quality.

How about the excuse you get what you pay for. Well let's put it this way. At some point, this no longer is true. Once it goes over a certain amount it becomes what is known as a rip off. People get ripped off all the time with out even knowing it. Let's say you buy a $5 bush, and a friend buys a $1 brush. You friends brush break in 2 days. You got what you payed for would apply. Now switch this around, your friend buys a $30 brush. 5 years down the road and you both still have the same brushes. You can suspect you friend got ripped off. Both brushes are of the same quality, but you friend payed more.

So, point is, paying more doesn't always mean better.

True, paying for something does not guarantee a better product, nor does it assure market forces don't cause a change in pricing, be that higher or lower. However your example is flawed, you use the term "being ripped off", which implies being swindled or deceived while buying something, which is a very different beast compared to feeling buyer remorse because market forces cause a change in price or poor shopper awareness. The person who whines about being "ripped off" because he paid more than his buddy for something is really whining about not proactively doing due diligence and wants to shift the blame of responsibility to someone else.

Paying for something alerts the shopper to the claimed value of something. If one is being told they can choose between a product that seems identical but one is $100 and the other is $50, even a half-wit should be asking why the price difference? Instinctively a shopper realizes that the half priced item must be half price for a reason and that they should seek information as to why.

"Free" is a myth. There is no such thing as free. As one gets older one sees this universal truth unless of course, they're prone to denial. "Free" merely means you will pay later on in some other manner rather than upfront. Thus I don't mind B2P models or P2P, what I am paying for is fairly transparent and I can decide on whether or not it holds value for me. F2P frequently has gated content and gotchas, sometimes they are transparent with them, but frequently its more subtle than that.

Personally I prefer a B2P model with a membership as was mentioned earlier in this thread, that payment model has a great deal of merit and high consumer satisfaction. Otherwise I tend to prefer P2P because I have certain expectations for that model which if they are not met, I yank my sub and am done with the product. I place more trust in someone wanting to get rich, than someone wanting to do something for me for "free", and with P2P/membership they have to deliver repeatedly, or they don't get to be rich.

Well ... I do have to say, I think this is the best argument I have heard against what I have said. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why others like P2P. I also, agree with everything you said after I thought about it. However, the reason I argue this is because, I am simply trying to be open.

The last person to respond to me, before you, states that everything I say is theory. Obviously unscientific theory to be exact.

That is very true, the model I talk about, has yet to be used with an MMO. However, I do have to ask, why does that make my argument any less valid? People simply "know" the answer or the best solution to everything. Just because one likes a certain particular payment model now, doesn't mean a better one will not come up later down the road. To excuse that all together is like saying, you hate change, or you simply don't welcome it. in my opinion, what is today, should never stop you from thinking about what is possible later on down the road.

As for my proof. That is simple, you compare the amount made of an MMO. You compare it with the amount made of a single player game, specifically Elder Scrolls. If the MMO is able to sustain itself with a certain amount of income, you can compare that to a B2P game. If that B2P game meets those numbers, then it would work.

This is a model that realize on Elder Scrolls popularity however. It wouldn't work on any MMO. TES is a popular enough franchise to easily pull off a B2P model even with out advertising. This is of course if we compare to past numbers.

Well besides that, if they changed P2P models down to something like $3 - 5 a month .. it would be a lot more appealing. I feel $15 a month is way to much. I am able to run an entire website for far cheaper. Course, that is comparing apples to oranges since that is the popular saying these days. Point is, worth is very important in my eyes. To me, unless a game sends me into a virtual reality world, I am not paying $15 a month. Though heck, if a virtual reality world existed .. I would gladly spend more then that lol.